UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography

Backlash writes "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's debate in the House of Lords: 'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'" Combine laws like this with widespread computer ownership, and it makes a whole lot of (Orwellian) sense.

Comments

Consequence of globalization

[arcite]

In a world that is increasingly connected; where slavery and human trafficking are increasing; one has to draw a line somewhere in the sand to mark where civilization ends and barbarism begins... don't you think?

Re:We want them broken.

[NeutronCowboy]

For the point of the story to be true, it requires sophistication, organization and strategic thinking on the level of an evil genius. Ayn Rand just didn't look at what her drivel would require to actually be true.

Governments do not exist to create criminals. Governments exist to create a smooth living environment that allows large groups of people to interact in an easy and predictable fashion.

I do agree about responsibility though. They're creating the mess, they're on the hook to clean it up. I'm still a proponent of forcing politicians to pay out of their own pocket if they're creating a deficit.

Re:We want them broken.

[NeutronCowboy]

For the story of Animal House to be true, it would require talking animals.

But the point of Animal Farm (which I suspect you're referring to, not the movie starring John Belushi) is not that talking animals exist. It is a story about human nature and how things evolve given human nature. The reason that Ayn Rand is full of shit (and certainly not interesting, insightful or poignant) is that her Objectivism - and therefore her stories illustrating objectivism - completely neglects human nature. It is an abstract construct that is completely founded on fantasy - much like Communism, I'd like to argue. Ayn Rand is the equivalent of the Anonymous GNAA trolls that post random shock stories - at least, the informational content is the same.

Since when should being difficult and unpredictable be a crime?

When being difficult and unpredictable results in death and destruction of property. And please don't get into semantics of what death and destruction actually is - I think we can assume agreement on some basic definitions. Governments create criminals as a side effect of their operation, not as main purpose. Saying governments exist to create criminals is like saying cars exist to be driven (hooray for car analogies) - it's mistaking a side effect for purpose. There are governments who do not create criminals, though they are rare and generally resort to expulsion as punishment for transgression.

Though here in California we have wonderful bond measures where people can vote themselves into debt mostly independent of politicians.

Yeah. Then again, it's not entirely surprising, considering the amount of people who consider a credit card to be extra cash. While I agree that the root cause behind stupid politicians is stupid people who elect them, I'm still wondering if there isn't a system that has procedures for accountability, rather than just voting on it.